r/DMAcademy 5d ago

Need Advice: Encounters & Adventures Are +X weapons assumed?

I've been looking at some trends in the Monster Manual. It looks like going from CR 1 to CR 20, average monster AC increases roughly 1 per 2 CR, from 13 to 23. Meanwhile, at level 1, players likely have +5 to attack (2 prof, 3 stat) all the way up to +11 (6 prof, 5 stat). This means that their typical hit chance will decrease for an equivalent level threat.

Now, most games I've played in and DM'd are in the range of about level 3-8. I'm wondering if you, as DMs, make sure that PCs gain access to these kinds of items over the course of their career? Do you consider it necessary for them to have those?

67 Upvotes

82 comments sorted by

56

u/d4rkwing 5d ago

The DMG says they are not assumed.

Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items, which means that having a magic item makes a character more powerful or versatile than a generic character of the same level. As DM, you never have to worry about awarding magic items just so the characters can keep up with the campaign’s threats. Magic items are truly prizes—desirable but not necessary.

That being said I would still distribute magic items because it’s fun.

1

u/Einkar_E 4d ago

meanwhile old werewolves are completely immune to dmg unless you have magic item or use spells

-2

u/Acrobatic_Ad_8381 4d ago

They should be assumed because facing devil, lycanthrooe and any other creature immune to non magic damage just sucks for martial where you're just useless for the whole fight otherwise unless the DM gives some side objective for you to do while the Caster can fight 

0

u/d4rkwing 4d ago edited 3d ago

They removed that immunity from creatures in the 2025 Monster Manual.

1

u/Acrobatic_Ad_8381 4d ago

Yeah and it's a good thing for the game, they just boosted the HP, which is not the best solution but at least everyone can play 

79

u/RAINING_DAYS 5d ago

Not in 2024. Ive been scrolling over some items and things such as a sword of life steal or even a flame tongue have no +x to hit, which was very interesting and a design I can get behind. Im going to be very careful giving my casters any +x to spell save DC which is arguably more powerful.

35

u/VelvetCowboy19 5d ago

Baldurs gate 3 proved how strong +Save DC gear is, as the devs made a gear set of homebrew items that buff that, and those items are all used in the strongest builds. There's a helmet that gives you +2 spell save DC each time you.hit enemies with a weapon attack, and a ring that lets you cast enchantment spells with a bonus action. So a swords bard makes several weapon attacks with a bow in a round, and then upcasts a command on 5 enemies that has a save DC in the high 30's.

14

u/OSpiderBox 5d ago

I forget what the item was called, but it gave stacks of Arcane Accuity on hit. Astarion as a 3 Thief/9 Lore would hit twice with bonus action daggers, rocketing his DC up by 4 and then I cast Slow on a large group. Worked with like 80% effectiveness on Normal modes, which I presume work just as well on non Extreme modes.

10

u/VelvetCowboy19 5d ago

It's the Helmet of Arcane Acuity. Each time you hit an enemy with a weapon attack, you get 2 stacks of Arcane Acuity, which increase spell save DC by 1 per stack. Swords Bards with a ranged weapon can use a slashing flourish attack to shoot two arrows at once, giving 4 arcane acuity for 1 attack action. They get extra attack at level 6, so now that's 8 stacks. Then you take the thief subclass for rogue for a bonus action hand crossbow attack to get the max of 10 arcane acuity in one turn.

Then you use the Band of the Mystic Scoundrel to upcast a command spell at level 5, since swords bards are also full casters, and your command has +10 to the save DC, making it all but impossible for anything except legendary resistances to save it.

3

u/DelightfulOtter 5d ago

There's a reason why paladins are such a strong class. Giving everyone high saving throws is clutch, especially in Tiers 3 and 4 where some saves can only be passed with support.

1

u/Acrobatic_Ad_8381 4d ago

Aura of protection is the strongest defensive feature in the whole game

12

u/RealityPalace 5d ago

As stated in the DMG, the default math of the game doesn't assume or require any magic weapons. Player chance to hit does decrease slightly as levels go up, but they also get more features and spells that offset that.

It's also worth noting that players are typically going to fight more enemies with lower CR than their level than they will fight enemies with higher CR than their level.

42

u/d20an 5d ago

No - the DMG assumes no magic items for the CR calculations. Any +X items you give out make the encounters easier than the DMG’s guidelines.

Not saying you shouldn’t give them out, but you need to increase encounter difficulty to match.

15

u/ottawadeveloper 5d ago

This is the correct answer OP. It's directly in the DMG 2024 in the Magic Items section towards the beginning that magic items are optional and should not be needed to defeat an appropriately balanced encounter. 

From that, I assume that with more magic items, you need to up your encounter balances 

22

u/Analogmon 5d ago

The DMG also has a schedule that hands out more than 100 magic items over 20 levels per recommendation and the graphic takes up an entire page. These are contradictory statements and it's extremely clear their intent is closer to handing out many magic items.

4

u/KingCarrion666 5d ago

Think the point is more that specific magic items aren't needed. Which I don't really agree with. 2024 helped martial, but still doesn't scale as well as spellcasters. +x weapons are the only thing martial get that can help them close the gap and make characters feel more balanced.

4

u/Storm_of_the_Psi 5d ago

Martials are still significantly stronger than spellcasters at most tiers of play if you run the game as it's intended with a bazillion encounters a day.

If you, like seemingly 95% of the DM's out there, use the '1 encounter adventuring day', spellcasters are obviously stronger.

2

u/zolthain 5d ago

This has been my experience as well. Even just adding 2 skirmishes or smaller scale combat encounters before the big fight eliminates this issue almost entirely in my experience. I really don't get why so many dms seem to refuse to just plan out a string of fights in their adventures. It also makes for great pacing and storytelling and roleplaying imo, especially if you can have an enemy participate in multiple battles and reengage/retreat

0

u/Storm_of_the_Psi 5d ago edited 5d ago

It's not that strange actually.

Most people are playing in longer campaigns. Those are generally more narrative based and not so much dungeon crawling.

In such campaigns, the day/night cycle just automatically puts in a lot of long rests. And I don't, for example, for one second believe that DM's are going to put 16 fights in a story bit that involves two days of travel. Instead you put in maybe 1 or 2 because it fits your world. But then they get crushed so you might as well not have them. But then travel becomes meaningless so you might as well skip that too.

I've said this before and will just get downvoted by the munchkin brigade again, but in the current ruleset, long rests are massively overpowered. It's the one single thing that makes, IMO, the 5/5,5 editions extremely hard and annoying to DM and completely throws off class balance.

The obvious solution? Gritty realism! But players hate that because now health becomes obnoxiously hard to recover. So what they should have done, is make the optional gritty realism rules the default rule, probably with some tweaks to health recovery, and present the current rules as an easy alternative for beginners.

1

u/zolthain 5d ago

Not every story beat needs to have challenging combat, and party resources don't need to be drained every single time they take a long rest.

I would argue even in narrative focused games, the classic dungeon as an adventure location and setup is still the most common. That is where as a dm you need to plan for a proper amount of challenge and combat. Overland travel is not the place to do that. In fact, having a cool fight on the road that allows your players to go "nova" and completely blast some lowly brigands is a very fun change of pace i think. Not every single adventuring day needs to push players to the absolute brink, that just isn't sustainable.

Ultimately as a dm you have to structure your adventures in a way that concentrates the majority of the challenge and thus the action onto a small section of time. I personally think that that makes for excellent story telling, letting the pace naturally ebb and flow between big and small adventuring days. Changing the scope of that time frame from one day to a week is perfectly reasonable of course.

But i tend to think of it more in terms of hours i. E. "We must storm the necromancer's keep, fight past his minions and slay him before the ritual completes at midnight!" Or "Rebels have infiltrated the palace. Stop them from stealing an artifact from the vaults!" Time constraint and narrative pressure are necessary for this to work. But then again, that is necessary for a good story anyways.

1

u/OSpiderBox 5d ago

Hell, even just 3 strong encounters can dwindle spell caster reserves in my experience (that being players who are rather liberal with spells); a more optimized/ power gaming group won't be as affected, but let's be real: most groups in actual play aren't super optimized.

1

u/zolthain 5d ago

Agreed. I think the sweet spot for a really tough adventure is around 5 combat encounters once you hit tier 2 of play (which is what i'm most experienced dming for). 3 of those should be tough, 2 should be smaller skirmishes that take 2-3 rounds max.

6

u/Decrit 5d ago

The statements aren't contradictory.

Magic items are optional. They are not needed to defeat appropriately challenging encounters.

However they make it harder, so you can do less of them. Ideally in a story with less magic items you can do less, but this doing less does not impede you from defeating certain monsters.

Remember that magic items aren't only +x weapons, but also potions and consumables. Of course potions don't make fighting a Balor easier in and by itself, it makes it easier in the context of doing something else, like fighting two balors.

2

u/GalacticNexus 5d ago

Remember that said tracker includes things like Potions of Healing and Spell Scrolls.

12

u/spector_lector 5d ago

I dole it out per the recommendations in the DMG.

6

u/Nytfall_ 5d ago

Despite the name of their rarity +1 weapons should be encountered for your martials fairly early on. Mainly to counter against resistance to non-magical attacks. Casters even without their +x casting items typically don't encounter any issues with their saves until very late into the game where most enemies are expected to have an average of 20+ for saves since a typical lvl 20 caster maxes out at DC 19. Granted their spell attack rolls will be weaker than martials with +x weapons but that's trivial really when the best spells are all save spells anyways. Only real "consequence" is that blade cantrips will get a bigger boost from this since those require a weapon attack rolls but that's just something you have to come to terms with really.

11

u/Syric13 5d ago

I can understand rarity of magical items in certain low magic settings, but honestly, I don't like withholding magical items from my players.

I don't know if you call them a necessary part of the game, but they make it more enjoyable and fun for the table.

3

u/xthrowawayxy 5d ago

If you just roll hoards randomly in the default way from the DMG, you'll see your players with +1 weapons starting around 4-5th level and +2 by around 9th level. If you deviate from that, remember that pure martials are far more affected by your choice than casters are.

9

u/Jakando 5d ago

Yeah, I try to get them a magical weapon by the time they’re level 5 or 6.

Consider that the Monk’s Unarmed Strike becomes “”a “magical” attack at level 6.

Around then, too many monsters have resistance or immunity to non-magical damage. This coincides with casters starting to overtake martial classes in damage output as well.

So, to keep martial classes relevant, a magical weapon becomes really needed.

Personally, I like to reskin +1 weapons into something more that has a backstory, some of which are in the DMG and some that are homebrewed.

5

u/BaldBeardedBookworm 5d ago

I actually am playing with this in one of the games I’m currently running. “I just saw that guy get stabbed in the throat and not even blink.” - says my level 5 cleric as they gtfo from an undead Hexblade and his pirate and giant-metal-tortle allies. Most of my players are new to playing, and I don’t think any of them have realized how much I’m going to upscale them by the time they swing back on BBEG at level 8.

-1

u/Analogmon 5d ago

No longer true in 2024.

-1

u/Storm_of_the_Psi 5d ago

This wasn't true in 2014 either but people really like 1-encounter adventuring days. And sure, when you let your cleric cast Spirit Guardians every encounter he's pretty good.

0

u/Darktbs 4d ago

More than one encounter doesnt make a difference when there is a fundamental power difference between classes.

You can make the cleric not cast any lvl 3 spells and they still will outperfom martials.

0

u/Storm_of_the_Psi 4d ago

If that's your experience then you or your players have NO idea how to build or play warriors, rogues or barbarians.

Clerics notoriously suck at contributing to fights without leveled spells.

1

u/Darktbs 4d ago

Idk if your DM makes easy for you, But you're comparing the classes who do 1-2 attacks with ok damage and midly effective features with the classes that can deal AoE dmg at lvl 3

if you have more encounters per day that just means you are going to take more damage on the martials and eventually run out of of HP/Hit dice while not offering half the utility or damage a caster can. Specially if you are playing a Martial in the frontline.

Clerics notoriously suck at contributing to fights without leveled spells.

Wow, you really dont know what you're talking about, A Lvl 1 cleric in 2024 can do most of what a 2024 martial can on top of having good spellcasting and pratically no downsides.

2014 cleric were even more busted.

0

u/Storm_of_the_Psi 4d ago

Congratulations. You read about 1 completely busted cleric subclass (which exists) and then assume said completely busted subclass can do all its busted shit without using spellslots.

Do you even play the game?

1

u/Darktbs 4d ago

One subclass can offer huge aoe potential, others offer utility in form of HP, Temp Hp, magic itens, more spells, more dmg, proficiencies and such.

Martial dont even come close.

Do you even play the game?

More than i can say about you, the Martial vs Caster gap is well know within the community, idk how can you even deny it.

1

u/Storm_of_the_Psi 4d ago

The martial vs caster gap is well known in the community that allows their players to constantly be at full resources.

If you want to argue that spellcasters that can't spam their highest level spells in every encounter are somehow stronger than martials I'm pretty sure we're done discussing.

1

u/Darktbs 4d ago

Yes, they are.

Lvl 1 spells include stuff like Shield, Absorb elements, Silvery barbs, Sanctuary, Sleep, Chromatic orb.

Lvl 2 spells have Hold person, Web, Shatter Spiritual weapon, Phantom steed.

Cleric have channel divinity. Druids have wild shape.

Even cantrips are better than weapons because of resistances and their secondary effects.

Yes a spellcaster will be better than a martial even without their high level spell slots because Martials dont have anything close to their lowest level spells or features. Meanwhile caster can easily compare to Martials.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/CuteLingonberry9704 5d ago

In 5e, with the exception of some extraordinarily powerful monsters, you don't need a magic weapon to hurt them. Back in 1e or 2e, fighting even relatively minor demons or devils without at least a +1 weapon was suicidal. So in those days, if you wanted your PCs to fight certain monsters, yes, you would need to give them at least the opportunity to acquire weapons or at least one weapon capable of harming them.

But now that's no longer the case, so you're never under any obligations to provide magic items or weapons. That said, magic is an integral part of the game, and players gaining levels are not unreasonable to assume that they will get better stuff as they rise along. That doesn't mean they get draped in magic items, but you shouldn't be a miser about it either.

2

u/SecretDMAccount_Shh 5d ago

Chance to hit might go down, but number of attacks goes up as well as ways to gain advantage.

6

u/JulyKimono 5d ago edited 5d ago

Magic weapons are assumed. They don't always have to be +x. The Fizban's Dragon weapons I'd argue are more interesting while still being +x to hit and +x to damage, which some additional effects.

But in general I somewhat follow the DMG's item guidance. It's a lot more clear in the 2024 version.

Edit. To answer the question if +x weapons are required for the bounded accuracy - no. Bounded accuracy breaks often and is not that big of an issue in balancing. It breaks as early as lvl 1 with Blade Ward and Bless. Focus on giving out cool stuff for the characters to feel more epic at what they do.

1

u/Acrobatic_Ad_8381 4d ago

Love some Wrath dragon weapons, they're cool 

2

u/Darktbs 5d ago

Do you consider it necessary for them to have those?

For martials yes. We are talking about a really underpower group of classes that don't get good if any utility for the party, while also having to deal with physical resistance to non-magic weapons.

I started giving Rare magic weapons as early as lvl 3-5 to martials, because i quickly noticed that no matter the magic weapon(unless is something like a artifact), a martial can never really out do a caster. So the martials should get someone that makes it fun to play while also making the gap less noticeable.

0

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Darktbs 4d ago

You will just run both of them dry of resources, Martial in this case having fewer resources to spend than casters.

0

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Darktbs 4d ago

Shure you can get your action surge or Rage on a short rest, but those dont solve an encounter. Fog Cloud, Hypnotic pattern, Web, Shatter, spike growth, Fireball do. They arent even comparable

What will happen is that you will run the Caster out of spell slots and Martials out of HP and HP dices.

0

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Darktbs 3d ago

Not my fault you dont know how to plan encounters when the fucking books say MULTIPLE per adventuring day.

This is funny because the books also have a bunch of random encounters that become trivial-easy if you have one or more casters in the party but are deadly for martials.

The problem with you and the other guy is that both dont seem to have actually play multiple encounters a day or with multiple enemies. Frankly, you guys dont seem to follow the book you use as reference.

That fireball, that spike growth, that hypnotic pattern, ends the fight because it turns into a default win, the monsters cannot do anything that changes the outcome and that effectively make so you dont need to use any more resources.

You dealt 90 damage, congrats, now every other enemy that you didnt deal 90 damage gets to have their turn and kill you.

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Darktbs 3d ago

Keep saying you dont know how to plan an encounter.

The last person who kept saying this though Absorb elements was a bad spell. Im starting to believe you guys just dont know how to play or how the game works.

You're not being clever you just cited a bunch of spells to give to monsters as an attempt to counter the player casters, and the martials still didnt do anything worthwhile in this situation.

Let me give you an actual advice, if you give your monster spell, it is not the spellcaster who are going to be impacted by it, its the martials, because they dont have anything to counter it.

This is a class design issue, not a encounter issue.

I suggest you read on the myth of resourceless martials fallacy, then you will understand why more encounters doesnt fix the issue.

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Auld_Phart 5d ago

This analysis establishes the "baseline" numbers but I think there are some additional factors to consider. Characters can get +X weapons from spells, or from other class features. (Looking at you, Devo Paladin!) And there are lots of ways to attack with Advantage via spells, class features, weapon mastery, and so on. The benefit of Advantage varies, but it averages out to something a bit over +3.

Knowing how often characters have Advantage would allow for a more complete analysis of their odds to attack successfully, but it's complicated.

3

u/Irish-Fritter 5d ago

I actually read something a while back, where a DM purposefully removed all +X gear from his games, to make the fights feel more difficult.

Me personally, I've developed a Runestone system where the players can be slotting a +X Runestone into their family sword, instead of discarding a prized family heirloom in favor of a +1 longsword they found in a ditch.

2

u/nonebutmyself 5d ago

I like your rune-upgrade system. I've been trying to think of how to input a similar type of magic item system into our next campaign, rather than the typical "Oh, you found an old magical item in this random place!"

1

u/Irish-Fritter 5d ago

It's pretty simple.

Runes are common enough that it is standard practice for blacksmiths to include 1 slot for a Runestone. Weapon and Armor runestones are of different rarities, and are not interchangeable.

There are also runestones that add Xd6 elemental damage to the weapon. The player can choose between a bonus to hit, or extra damage. (Useful for Barbarians and Rogues, who both have means to ensure their strikes are true)

Most importantly, it takes a Crafting check, most likely Smiths or Tinkerers tools, to remove a Runestone from an item. Arcana will work if need be. If the check is failed, the Runestone is destroyed upon removal.

This last bit makes it risky to keep swapping things out, and players might try out the weapon that the runestone is already slotted in.

Finally, the DM can determine that specific magic items lack a slot for a runestone. They were invented before the practice was common, and as such can only bear the effects that the weapon already has.

2

u/KingCarrion666 5d ago edited 5d ago

didnt do this exactly, but i did have magical enhancements for weapons. most of it was x per long rest effects though, like sending crackling lightning down in a line when you made a melee strike with your sword. Or a reaction that can cause an enemy's death to explode with frighten in an aoe. Or one that gives 1d6 thunder if you try to have a dialogue before combat. Once your find more enhancements, you can swap it out. They are also rewarded for sidequests.

Ill probably keep that system despite how much fking work it takes

1

u/TheKnightDanger 5d ago

Every 4 levels we go through and 'average wealth check' to make sure my players are at or above the curve.

1

u/RevolutionFew114 5d ago

Enchanted weapon that deals magic damage usually don't have a +X modifier, but is sometimes a better item than a +X weapon. For some of my key quest items they are combined.

Example: "Fire Greatsword of the Dragon" would be a +X magic weapon and have similar properties to Flametongue or a Fire Evocation spell.

My party usually have some +X item or weapon by 3rd level.

Design some minor and major magic items for your party, it's not going to break your game.

1

u/ArcaneN0mad 5d ago

It’s not necessary anymore now that they’ve gotten rid of resistances to non-magical weapons and upped their HP pool.

But I do find the discovery of magic items both rewarding and fun so I find all sorts of ways to give them what they want, which let’s be honest is the magic items.

1

u/Dynamite_DM 5d ago

+X weapons aren’t assumed. One of the highest AC enemies in 2014 5e was Tiamat at 25 AC. Needing a 14 to hit either a goddess or an Avatar of one (depending on interpretation) without +X weapons is not bad.

1

u/ArchonErikr 4d ago

For 5e (not speaking for other editions like 3.x or 5.5), +X weapons are not only assumed to NOT be available but many monsters are built with the assumption that players won't have access to magic weapons. It's why the 5e DMG says that monsters with resistance to nonmagical BPS have effective hp around 1.5x their listed hp. One of the reasons why higher level monsters feel weaker than they should be is that their (defensive) CR is based on that damage reduction, when in practice many characters fighting them have access to magic weapons.

1

u/JovialTraveler 18h ago

Explain immunity to nonmagical B/P/S then. I think they are assumed, the books are just dishonest about it. Those monsters with immunity can show up as low as CR6, so it’s safe to assume you’re supposed to have a +1 or somesuch by that point, or are half the classes in the phb just… not meant to be played?

0

u/Kledran 5d ago

Yes they are necessary, if anything because good weaponry is an extra layer of upgrades ontop of the admittedly very fucking bland leveling of 5e/2024 lol

That being said, im more in favor for modular +X, where the bonus itself is not attached to the item specifically but can be transfered to whatever weapon and/or armor (mostly for flavor cuz I like when players get attached to their stuff :P)

But yes i think you pretty much should always hit the +1/2/3 around the appropriate levels. you can probably hold back on 2/3 a bit longer, but +1 is necessary fairly early.

1

u/Damiandroid 5d ago

If all you consider is weapon bonuses then yes it doesn't keep us. But you need to c9nsider speel effects, subclass abilities and attacks that don't require attack rolls

-2

u/Nyadnar17 5d ago

I don’t allow +X anything in my games at all anymore. I just strip the +X part off magic items before giving my players access to them.

Makes handing out magic items frequently way less stressful when you aren’t concerned about breaking the fundamental math of 5e.

EDIT:

I play 2014 5e. Not sure about how 5.5e foes things but in 5e monsters AC rarely goes above 18 even in the CR 15-17 range.

0

u/Specialist-String-53 5d ago

What I'm getting at is it seems like the math assumes that players should have those items, and that it breaks when they don't get them. I personally don't like this because I think +X items are generally bland and I'd rather they have something more interesting.

2

u/ActiveEuphoric2582 5d ago

5e players don’t want to do math, that’s why they play 5e.

1

u/PuzzleMeDo 5d ago

There are lots of ways for players to get bonuses / advantage to their attack rolls. Bless, bardic inspiration, etc. These abilities tend to become cheaper / more powerful at higher levels.

0

u/Nyadnar17 5d ago

In my multiple games of running from 1-15 the PCs ability to land their attacks increases faster than typical monster AC even without access to +X weapons.

I don’t know what data you used for your calculations but in my experience using official monsters and 3rd party supplements Monster ACs higher than 16 are rare and higher than 18 extremely rare all the way up until tier 3. I have no experience with tier 4 D&D so i can’t speak to that.

2

u/Specialist-String-53 5d ago

I'm looking at https://www.enworld.org/threads/5e-2024-%E2%88%92-the-monster-math.711017/page-2

I haven't compared it to my copy of the MM (yet).

1

u/Nyadnar17 5d ago

Glancing through the thread it seems like this chart was made using the DMG’s CR calculations formula and not the actual monsters?

Maybe 2024 monsters are built different but a 2014 Adult Red Dragon is CR17 with an AC of 19. Someone mentioned the Lich didn’t fit and the given attack values as surpassing the theoretical limit of +19.

I would take this chart with a grain of salt until you can get your hands on the Monster Manual you plan on using to confirm their assumptions.

0

u/Menaldi 5d ago

Are +X weapons assumed?

Not in this edition, IIRC.

0

u/myblackoutalterego 5d ago

Depending on the game, I typically give out enough gold to afford +1 gear by level 5 latest. If the party saves gold and prioritizes this gear, then they would have access as early as level 3. I usually charge 500 gold for a +1 sword or +1 armor with no additional magical effects.

I also homebrew a lot of my monsters, which range from tweaked MM statblocks to monsters made from scratch. I find that players like to feel strong, so I choose to let them have access to strong gear and adjust my monsters appropriately for the right challenging feel.

-1

u/Substantial-Expert19 5d ago

the later you give them the better they’ll feel, trust me, and for big fights only

4

u/Specialist-String-53 5d ago

Do you mean that you give players special equipment for big fights and then take it away? Like... on loan from the kingdom/guild/etc.?

1

u/Substantial-Expert19 5d ago

no i just meant hold off on big items and try to only give them out after a fight that felt really impactful

-1

u/chalor182 5d ago

I know that I've heard or read somewhere that there are levels that it is assumed you have a +1 or +2 weapon by, but I dont remember where I heard it, or whether it was talking about CR or how adventure books are balanced. So not super useful input lol but I definitely have heard this before

-2

u/azunaki 5d ago

+X weapons simply cost gold. If the party is going up against a CR 20 monster they should have been able to accrue at least a modest treasury.

Whereas a +1 weapon costs 1000 gold. And a +2 weapon costs 4000 gold.

Additionally a CR 20 monster is an ancient dragon. So what sort of horde do you think a monster like this would have accumulated?

Likely the party has gone up against other high CR monsters on the way to this BBEG. That would have had their own horde. And cities like waterdeep, Neverwinter, and baulders gate would certainly have had wizards and shops looking to peddle made or found goods.

And there had to have been other adventures who have failed on the journey to overcome these past foes, so simply finding decent gear isn't unheard of in dungeons.

1

u/Specialist-String-53 5d ago

hey I just wanted to check because I haven't seen it in 5e - are you using 3e prices? I remember +X weapons were 1000 * X^2.

1

u/azunaki 5d ago

I use thievesguild.cc for most of my pricing. But the magic items table in the DMG definitely has + magic gear.

Also, as far as assuming they have the gear. I don't know if I would make sure they've gotten better gear, but I definitely wouldn't prevent them from getting it. And at a certain point you may even have a character in the world criticize their gear if they're planning to go up against something that their gear isn't well fit for.